¶1When a building is on fire, a leader will not survey
everyone to see what the consensus is about a response. It is time for
action. — Bhadani’s Second Law

¶2Open, civil, egalitarian, deliberative: these are some of
the concepts encountered in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. While they
might seem simple enough in the abstract, they become much less so when used in
the practice and discourse of a community. For instance, a perfectly “open”
community will likely be chaotic, rendering it inhospitable to many. Or, if
consensus doesn’t require unanimity, agreement — unanimous or otherwise —
on what it does require can be elusive. Some of the sources and ironies of the
English Wikipedia’s collaborative culture are further highlighted when one
considers the role and status of leadership. Wikipedia, like other open content
communities, is predominately a voluntary effort — aside from a few Wikimedia
Foundation staff — and there’s little room for coercion or utilitarian
rewards.1Amitai
Etzioni, Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: Free Press of
Glencoe, 1975). Yet, there is often a seemingly paradoxical
use of informal tyrant-like titles (i.e., “benevolent dictator”) for the
community leader. What, then, can we make of this latest puzzle?

¶3 In this
chapter I show how this juxtaposition can be understood as an “authorial”
form of leadership whereby exceptional autocratic power is exercised by a
respected “author” within an open content community. I then return to the
story of Wales and Sanger, for their conceptions of leadership and expectations
for the community profoundly shaped its direction and culture. Finally, I
consider how the community discusses this type of leadership and the values
with which it seems at odds.

¶9 Fundamentally, the ability to create a fork forces
project leaders to pay attention to their constituencies. Even if an OSS/FS
project completely dominates its market niche, there is always a potential
competitor to that project: a fork of the project. Often, the threat of a
fork is enough to cause project leaders to pay attention to some issues they
had ignored before, should those issues actually be important. In the end,
forking is an escape valve that allows those who are dissatisfied with the
project’s current leadership to show whether or not their alternative is
better.12Wheeler,
“Why Open Source Software/Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the
Numbers!”

¶11
Because of the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities
it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very
leadership is founded upon exemplary behavior; leadership emerges through
action rather than appointment. And while a founding leadership role has some
semblance of authoritarianism to it, at least in title, it is eternally
contingent: a dissatisfied community, or some constituency thereof, can always
leave and start again under new leadership.

¶13
Wales, a co-owner of the Internet content and search company Bomis, hired
Sanger in February 2000 to launch and act as the editor in chief of the Nupedia
project. Until he resigned, Sanger was the most prominent leader of Nupedia
(the original peer-review project) and Wikipedia (its wiki complement and
eventual successor). As Sanger writes in his April 2005 memoir:

¶14 The idea of adapting wiki technology to the task of
building an encyclopedia was mine, and my main job in 2001 was managing and
developing the community and the rules according to which Wikipedia was run.
Jimmy’s role, at first, was one of broad vision and oversight; this was the
management style he preferred, at least as long as I was involved. But,
again, credit goes to Jimmy alone for getting Bomis to invest in the project,
and for providing broad oversight of the fantastic and world-changing project
of an open content, collaboratively-built encyclopedia. Credit also of course
goes to him for overseeing its development after I left, and guiding it to
the success that it is today.

¶15
What precipitated Sanger’s resignation? As discussed in chapter 2, Sanger was
caught between continuing frustration with Nupedia’s slow progress on one
hand and problems with unruly Wikipedians on the other. Furthermore, Sanger
alienated some Wikipedians who saw his actions as unjustifiably autocratic and
he eventually broke with the project altogether. In late 2006 Sanger launched
the more expert-friendly collaborative encyclopedia Citizendium. In any case,
Sanger’s account recognizes the uneasy tension between title and authority
and cultural momentum at the founding of this community:

¶16 My early rejection of any enforcement authority, my
attempt to portray myself and behave as just another user who happened to
have some special moral authority in the project, and my rejection of rules
— these were all clearly mistakes on my part. They did, I think, help the
project get off the ground; but I really needed a more subtle and
forward-looking understanding of how an extremely open, decentralized project
might work.

¶17
Such an understanding might have been like that of Theodore Roosevelt’s
recommended leadership style: speak softly and carry a big stick. Whereas
Sanger did have special authority at Nupedia as “editor in chief,” such was
not the case at Wikipedia, and Sanger’s corresponding “loudness” was a
later cause of regret:

¶18 As it turns out, it was Jimmy who spoke softly and
carried the big stick; he first exercised “enforcement authority.” Since
he was relatively silent throughout these controversies, he was the “good
cop,” and I was the “bad cop”: that, in fact, is precisely how he
(privately) described our relationship. Eventually, I became sick of this
arrangement. Because Jimmy had remained relatively toward the background in
the early days of the project, and showed that he was willing to
exercise enforcement authority upon occasion, he was never so ripe for attack
as I was.15Sanger,
“The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia”.

¶20 For months I denied that Wikipedia was a community,
claiming that it was, instead, only an encyclopedia project, and that there
should not be any serious governance problems if people would simply stick to
the task of making an encyclopedia. This was strictly wishful thinking. In
fact, Wikipedia was from the beginning and is both a community and an
encyclopedia project.17Sanger, “The Early History of Nupedia and
Wikipedia”.

¶21 As
noted earlier, upon publication of Sanger’s memoirs a controversy arose over
whether Sanger even deserved credit as a cofounder of Wikipedia. In a sense, in
playing the bad cop one is depleting one’s own reputation or leadership
credits in favor of the good cop; Sanger, in shifting from bad-cop to apostate,
prompted some to question whether such credit was merited at any time. A more
productive discussion at the time characterized the change in leadership style
as a necessary one:

¶23Sanger actually concedes as much in the development of
editorial policies but is still concerned about controlling abusive editors and
attacks, particularly when they alienate high-quality expert contributors. And
so he now leads the Citizendium project.

¶26
Furthermore, after immersing oneself in Wikipedia practice it is not difficult
to see that many of its good faith norms are strongly exercised by Wales
himself. In a 2007 discussion about his role at Wikipedia he described his
approach as diplomatic and reflects elements of both good faith and neutrality:

¶33
Additionally, humor serves to further camaraderie and diffuse anxiety about
leadership. In response to a message about an April Fool’s Day joke about
Wales as dictator, someone responded that many prominent Wikipedians make
jokes:

¶34 These jokes don’t have a “point.” If you scour
the list for all messages, you will find that I am not the only one who has a
sense of humour and knows how to make jokes. In fact, this extends to Ant,
Mav, Jimbo, etc. who can occasionally be found to be making a joke on this
list.

¶37 In
any case, Wikipedia’s good faith culture undeniably has been shaped by
Wales’s own values and actions; while he did not write many articles, he did
help establish many of Wikipedia’s essential values and norms. Additionally,
after Sanger’s departure he once again attempted to move to the
“background” in encouraging other forms of governance to emerge and by
supporting like-minded persons with a similar temperament.

¶38Whereas cofounder Larry Sanger was editor in chief of
Nupedia and he was informally known as the chief organizer of Wikipedia,
neither role was ever claimed again after he resigned. Instead, the
“Administrators” page stresses that everyone is an equal editor. Those who
demonstrate themselves to be good editors may request extra responsibilities
but “are not imbued with special authority.”38Wikipedia,
“Wikipedia:Administrators,” March 23, 2005,
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=11508036 (visited on May 4,
2007). Yet, while Wikipedia culture values editorial
egalitarianism over administrative responsibilities, this does not mean there
are no leaders. Consequently, before turning to how the community speaks about
leadership, I first present a brief description of the leadership and
governance structure of Wikipedia itself.

¶39 A
novel characteristic of Wikipedia is that most anyone who browses Wikipedia may
edit it — though a tiny fraction of pages are “protected” if they are
subject to persistent or severe policy violations, such as edit warring,
vandalism, defamation, or copyright violations.39Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Practical
Process (oldid=221497230)”; Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Lists of Protected
Pages,” Wikipedia, June 30, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=222655315
(visited on October 2, 2008). Wikipedia pages claim that
contributors who sign up for an account and log in — no longer
“anonymous” — do not gain additional powers; instead, they have access to
useful features such as a user page and the ability to track the pages one
cares about. (Of course, a logged-in user who builds a good reputation can
garner informal authority among other contributors.) Additional features are
made accessible to experienced users in the role of a system
administrator, or sysop. These features permit such an administrator to
enact Wikipedia policy and group consensus, particularly with respect to the
management of protected pages, the deletion of pages, or temporarily blocking
sources of vandalism. Yet, the English Wikipedia’s “Administrators” page
quotes Jimmy Wales as saying, “This should not be a big deal.” Indeed, in a
2005 version of this page an association with editorial authority is purposely
disavowed:

¶40 Administrators are not imbued with any special
authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial
responsibility. Some Wikipedians consider the terms “Sysop” and
“Administrator” to be misnomers, as they just indicate Wikipedia users
who have had performance-and security-based restrictions on several features
lifted because they seemed like trustworthy folks and asked nicely. However,
administrators do not have any special power over other users other than
applying decisions made by all users.

¶41
In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in
principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an
administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if
they have not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so
are more likely to be nominated as full administrators by members of the
community and more likely to be chosen when they are finally
nominated.40Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Administrators
(oldid=11508036)”.

¶44 In
Wikipedia culture, and in keeping with the larger wiki culture, delineations of
authority are suspect, as is seen in the previous excerpt regarding the role of
administrators. Yet, even if these other levels of authority entail
responsibilities rather than rights — which is the orthodox line — they
could nonetheless be seen as something to achieve or envy if only for symbolic
status. This leads to the occasional call for the label associated with this
role to be deprecated, as discussed in the thread “Rename Admins to
Janitors”:

¶45 I’m sick and tired of people misunderstanding what
an “administrator” of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and
we’ve had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users
misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media
misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and
influence). And it’s no wonder. “Administrator” could refer to a
manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in
an important official position.

¶47
Also, it is worthwhile to note that as one ascends the hierarchy of roles, and
the power of implementation increases, policy discretion often decreases. Just
as administrators ought not to have extra authority in making editorial
decisions, stewards should not make policy decisions. Stewards can “remove
arbitrary user access levels” on any Wikimedia wiki. They can toggle whether
one has the ability of an administrator (to block users or protect pages), a
bot (run automatic tools), or a bureaucrat (set access levels within a single
wiki), and whether one has the ability of oversight (suppressing revisions), or
checkuser (to determine the Internet address of users). Because of this power,
stewards are governed by their own policies: don’t decide, don’t promote
users on projects with existing bureaucrats, don’t change rights on your own
project, act with transparency, and check local policies.48Wikimedia, “Stewards,”
Wikimedia, November 2, 2007, http://meta.wikimedia.org/?oldid=733931 (visited
on November 2, 2007). The “don’t decide” policy further
states:

¶48 Stewards are not allowed to make decisions, such as
“this user should (or should not) be promoted.” Their task is to
implement valid community decisions…. Stewards should always be neutral.
They can vote in elections, but when executing the result of the election the
steward has to act according to the result, even if they disagree.49Wikimedia, “Steward Policies
(oldid=724037)”.

¶51
However, despite an early lack of concern with community structure and culture
(e.g., “Ignore All Rules”), protestations that administrators are nothing
but janitors, and that the ArbCom was but an experimental delegation of
authority from Wales, Wikipedia’s conceptualization of governance and
leadership is maturing and stabilizing. Wikipedia has long since recognized
itself as a community, people strive to become administrators despite
disclaimers, and the ArbCom is unlikely to go away. The cultural significance
of administrators was acknowledged in January 2007 by the creation of the page
“Advice for New Administrators,” which became part of the “New Admin
School,” which even includes the “coaching” (mentoring) of editors who
want to become an administrator.56Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:New Admin School,” Wikipedia,
June 20, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=220558698 (visited on July 31,
2008); Wikipedia, ... Yet, the orthodox caveats about
responsibility rather than power persist, as the “Advice” page cautions:

¶52 Remember that administrator status is not a trophy.
Generally, therefore, do not act any differently now than you did six months
or a year ago. It is true that you may be able to help mediate a dispute
effectively, or resolve one, or guide the improvement of an article. But in
virtually all of these cases your ability has nothing to do with your being
an administrator, just with your experience, knowledge of the policies, and
good sense — i.e. virtues you had long before you became an administrator,
and virtues shared by many non-administrators…. Wikipedia administrators do
have certain powers, and you need good judgment to use them. Nevertheless,
this does not mean that administrators should act like police or judges.
Consider thinking of your new status more like a custodian.57Wikipedia, “Wikipedia:Advice
for New Administrators,” Wikipedia, June 10, 2008,
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=218417159 (visited on August 8,
2008).

¶53
Furthermore, the role of socializing others into the collaborative norms of
Wikipedia are represented as a central function of being an administrator, who
should be willing to talk and be patient; respond with “gentle”
encouragement and discouragement; pay “careful attention to our core
policies”; “assume people act on good faith”; and “give people the
benefit of the doubt.” They should not “get sucked in” to the disputes in
which they intervene.

¶55
Nonetheless, the need for “dictatorship” arises from the difficulty
inherent to decision making in large, voluntary, and consensus-oriented
communities. While a cabal or dictator might be complained about, so might
their absence. In a discussion about whether a redesign of Wikipedia’s portal
should use icons of national flags to represent different languages — many
nations share a language or use more than one — Wikipedian NSK wrote that
continued arguments “do nothing to improve the present ugly portal.”
Unfortunately, “Wikipedia suffers from many voices, often contradictory. I
think you need an influential leader to take final decisions (after community
input of course).”61NSK,
“Re: Flags,” wikipedia-l, January 10, 2005,
http://marc.info/?i=200501101748.06696.nsk2@wikinerds.org (visited on
January 10, 2005). This sentiment is shared in many open
content communities. FOSS practitioner Karl Fogel writes: “Only when it is
clear that no consensus can be reached, and that most of the group wants
someone to guide the decision so that development can move on, do they put
their foot down and say ‘This is the way it’s going to be.”’62Fogel, “Producing Open Source
Software,” 48. Clay Shirky also makes this point in his
essay “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy” by way of Geoff Cohen’s
observation that “the likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually
get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as
time increases.”63Geoff
Cohen, quoted in Shirky, “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy,”
5. (Again, Cohen’s observation takes the form of the ever
popular Godwin’s Law.)

¶56 In
the Wikipedia context, in addition to differing opinions among those of good
faith, an informal and consensus-based approach does not seemingly deal well
with those who act in bad faith, such as the feared neo-Nazi attack:

¶60
Anthere, a former chairperson of the board of trustees, described this balance
of reserved authority and delegation as one of facilitating or hindering a
direction, reminiscent of the goal theory of leadership66Yukl, Leadership in Organizations,
144. whereby a leader makes the subordinate’s path more
satisfying and easier to travel by clarifying goals and reducing obstructions:

¶62
However, this balance can lead to ambiguities that prompt discussion, such as
that about editorial authority. In February of 2005 an enormous debate erupted
over the illustration included in the encyclopedic article on autofellatio.
Images tend to prompt many debates and raise questions of censorship, free
speech, cultural differences, and of the age appropriateness and quality of
Wikipedia. A similar debate arose for the image in the clitoris article, as
well as a cinematic still of Kate Winslet wearing nothing but a diamond
necklace in the “Titanic (1997 film)” article. The latter debate was
resolved when her breasts were cropped from the image;68Wikipedia, “Talk:Titanic (1997
Film)/Archive 1,” Wikipedia, December 13, 2007,
http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=177757001 (visited on September 30,
2008). it was eventually removed altogether because of
copyright concerns. When Wales deleted the photographic image of autofellatio,
which had replaced the less-contentious illustration, Erik Moeller challenged
this action as it raised the old issue of to what extent Wikipedia has an
“editor in chief”:

¶63 Perhaps you could clarify that this was not done in
your role as trustee. I don’t believe it was, as you did not consult with
Angela and Anthere [two other trustees], so I consider it just like an edit
by any other Wikipedia editor, only that, of course, you hope that people
will take it more seriously because of the reputation that comes with your
role in the project, past and present. That’s completely reasonable, if
done rarely and in cases you consider important.

¶64
The page is currently being edit warred over, and one editor uses the comment
“rv [revert] to Jimbo’s approved version.” It would be helpful if you
could state here that you are not in the business of approving articles. I
believe your edit summary “This image is completely unacceptable for
Wikipedia” could be misconstrued to be an official statement, when it is
your personal opinion. Some people still see Wikimedia as being governed by a
benevolent dictator, and any explanation would help to eliminate that
misconception.

¶66
Wales did not respond to this particular email message, but continued
discussion with respect to how this image would affect educational use of
Wikipedia. However, Wales’s role was further discussed during discussion of
the possible neo-Nazi attack. This led Wales to clarify that he would prevent
such an attack though he also recognizes the dangers inherent to such action:

¶67 The danger of course is that the benign dictator may
turn out to be biased or wrong himself. So I hesitate to do this except in
cases where speed is of essence, or where it’s just very clearcut and easy.
What I prefer is that I can act as a temporary bridge and “person to
blame” while we work on community solutions.70Wales, “Re: Neo-Nazis to
Attack Wikipedia”.

¶68Seven months later, on the same thread, Wales further
defined his role as a “constitutional monarch”:

¶69 I do not believe in the “benevolent dictator”
model for Wikipedia. Our project is of major historical significance, and it
is not appropriate for any one person to be the benevolent dictator of all
human knowledge. Obviously.

¶70
But we have retained a “constitutional monarchy” in our system and the
main reason for it is to support and make possible a very
open system in which policy is set organically by the community and
democratic processes and institutions emerge over a long period of
experimentation and consensus-building…. It is not possible for 10,000
NeoNazis (if such numbers exist) to storm into Wikipedia and take it over by
subverting our organic democratic processes because I will not allow it.
Period. So we don’t have to overdesign those processes out of a paranoia of
a hostile takeover. But this also means that we don’t need to over-react
right now. We can wait and see. They’ll talk a big game but just review
those message boards and then look around here. A battle of wits between
Wikipedians and Nazis? I know who I’m betting on.71Jimmy Wales, “Re: Re: A
Neo-Nazi Wikipedia,” wikien-l, August 27, 2005,
http://marc.info/?i=4310D2CB.1060401@wikia.com (visited on August 27,
2005).

¶71Wales’ conception of his role was further developed
and articulated on the “Benevolent Dictator” discussion page:

¶72 I am more comfortable with the analogy to the
British monarch, i.e. my power should be (and is) limited, and should fade
over time….

¶73
The situation in nl.wikipedia.org is probably a good example of how I can
play a productive role through the judicious exercise of power. My role there
is mostly just as advisor to people in terms of just trying to help people
think about the bigger picture and how we can find the best ways to interact
and get along to get our incredibly important work done.

¶74
But it is also a role of “constitutional” importance, in the sense that
everyone who is party to the discussion can feel comfortable that whatever
agreements are reached will be *binding*, that there is a higher enforcement
mechanism. It’s not up to me to *impose* a solution, nor is it up to me
directly to *enforce* a solution chosen by the community, but I do play a
role in guaranteeing with my personal promise that valid solutions decided by
the community in a reasonable fashion will be enforced by someone….

¶75
And notice, too, that I believe such authority should be replaced as time
goes along by institutions within the community, such as for example the
ArbCom in en.wikipedia.org, or by community votes in de.wikipedia.org, etc.

¶83To whatever extent Wikipedia has been successful in the
pursuit of a universal encyclopedia — a question for the next chapter — I
argue an appreciation of the community and its collaborative culture is key to
understanding Wikipedia. However, unlike the purity of a utopian dream,
Wikipedians must reconcile their vision with the inescapable social reality of
irritating personalities, philosophical differences, and external threats.
Despite its good-faith collaborative culture, its egalitarian ethos, and its
openness — or because of it — Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial
leadership. An informal benevolent dictator serves to gently guide the
community, to mediate internal disputes between those of good faith, and to
defend against those acting in bad faith. At this point, he or she may achieve
a significant amount of symbolic status within the community or even outside
attention. However, when a person comes to be responsible for more than he or
she can do by dint of will alone, new responsibilities and authority pull taut
a tightrope that must be carefully walked before the eyes of one’s peers.
Sanger’s reflections about his exit from the community and continued
discussion about Wales’s role are testaments to how delicately the tin crown
of such leadership must be balanced.